Jump to content


We blame WG, but is it us?

bots teams matchmaking winning losing noobs newbies win rate wn8

  • Please log in to reply
64 replies to this topic

Dead_in_30_seconds #1 Posted 25 May 2018 - 02:15 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 1962 battles
  • 459
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    11-07-2017

We have all read the multitude of rants around 'idiot teams', 'unfair match-making', 'bots', 'noobs ruining games' blah, blah, blah, blah, but my question is this.

 

Isn't the real problem the fact that, what is obviously a team game, simply isn't played by teams?

 

If everyone on the green team communicated with each other, organised tactics such as perimeter defenses, split into groups of LT, MT & HT to attack/defend corridors/choke points, fell back/pushed forward in a co-ordinated manner, and simply put, played as a team, wouldn't our win rate be significantly better?

 

Let's take the hypothesis that the entire red team consists of 'bots', and that WG have deliberately stacked the odds against us. Looking at the performance of 'bots' in the old Proving Ground, are we really not better players than them?

I know. of course, that an initial response is likely to be, "well they don't fill it with 'bots', the MM fills it with players of a higher tier and better WR than us", but can we really blame our 15-4 defeat on that?

 

I think the real blame lay with ourselves. Ultimately we drive off, focused on our own performance. Sure, we are aware of our team, but do we react appropriately? How many times have you received a message of 'defend the base' from someone parked a million miles away, who isn't following their own advice? How many times have you seen a platoon of 3 or 4 players die within the first 5 minutes without a single kill between them?

 

I'm wary of this turning into a boring rant, exactly the type of post I get sick of, but I am really beginning to realise that the reason we get slaughtered so regularly, is the fact that we don't play as one.

Maybe it's time we stopped blaming everyone else, and started examining our own failings.



Gvozdika #2 Posted 25 May 2018 - 02:32 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 38089 battles
  • 548
  • Member since:
    02-26-2011

Personally, I blame the parents for not brunging them up proper. 

 

Joking aside - WoT is accessible to a wide audience of varying abilities, aims, goals and priorities. That's why it didn't fizzle out as a game concept years ago and why it keeps going (DESPITE the actions of it's developers at times). Having to rub shoulders with people who are erm.... less talented....is the price I'm happy to pay for what is a reasonably enjoyable game to waste my free time on. 

 

I am also very much aware that I sometimes (intentionally or otherwise) play like a complete and utter tool with a deathwish. Everyone is prone to those instances. So I accord people the same benefit of the doubt my team has to give me when they see a Purple WN8 player yoloing across the campinovka field in his O-Ho because of a bet he had with his platoon-mate.

 

EDIT - WG does play some part in proceedings - by a combination of map design that discourages lateral thinking and recent balance decisions that make the game a contest of who has the biggest gun/armour.


Edited by Gvozdika, 25 May 2018 - 02:33 PM.


Tramp_In_Armour #3 Posted 25 May 2018 - 02:32 PM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 4447 battles
  • 181
  • Member since:
    05-25-2017

Considering that a team is filled with fifteen complete strangers, all speaking different languages and having differing abilities, I'm surprised there is any 'team play' at all, so I remain grateful for the limited cooperation that there is. Sometimes it surprises me, but I've learned not to expect too much. After all, for that sort of thing, we have clan wars and competitions. So I don't get why people complain about randoms. It truly could be a lot worse.

 

And if gameplay could be improved, it would be improved on both sides, so the law of averages would continue unabated and I doubt anyone's winrate would go up. Throughout history, we have seen battles between two well matched opponents, with trained commanders, end in bitter or humiliating defeat for one side. We see it too in the football premier league, again after extensive training and with experienced players. Looking at England's performance in world cup challenges, using highly paid professional players and unbelievable amounts of cash spent on training facilities, motivation gurus and the like, can we really expect anything different from a casual online game with people who aren't actually paid to be there? Considering how random a random game of WOT is, I think it's a miracle that there's any coordinated teamplay at all. But sometimes there is. Some gratitude is in order, methinks.



Jigabachi #4 Posted 25 May 2018 - 02:59 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 17846 battles
  • 17,944
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    08-12-2011
The developer is to blame for failing to set up a proper gaming environment.
The players are to blame for everything else.

The playerbase is one of the top3 problems the game has and WG is to blame for not educating them and not watching their progress, but WG can't help if the players lack intelligence or basic social education.

Dead_in_30_seconds #5 Posted 25 May 2018 - 03:07 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 1962 battles
  • 459
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    11-07-2017

As ever Tramp, an educated, well reasoned response. There are some things we can rely on. :)

 

BUT, I disagree with some of the analogous content.

 

Premier league sides, or indeed the England squad, are in fact playing as teams, they are simply out-classed by better teams. The difference is, they are playing as teams.

 

As for win rate not improving because of team-play, surely not true? Average win-rate of between 45-48% for the majority of players would naturally improve to 49 - 51% to allow for the hard of thinking and 'naturally' gifted players.

 

As long as altruism exists, your premise that we should be grateful for any support is entirely valid. It's this very altruism that is the basis for my contention that this is what holds us back.

 

The randomness of WoT also adds weight to my thoughts. It's the lack of team-play that holds us back. In it's current state, I agree wholeheartedly, we can only be thankful for any hint of support we get from our team-mates. I just wish there was some way of 'forcing' more collaborative play.

 

View PostJigabachi, on 25 May 2018 - 01:59 PM, said:

The developer is to blame for failing to set up a proper gaming environment.
The players are to blame for everything else.

The playerbase is one of the top3 problems the game has and WG is to blame for not educating them and not watching their progress, but WG can't help if the players lack intelligence or basic social education.

 

Out of interest buddy, can you give an example of where the developer, in a similar venture, has set up a better gaming environment?

'basic social education' Now there's a whole discussion topic waiting to happen! :)


 

_6i6_ #6 Posted 25 May 2018 - 03:16 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 3911 battles
  • 81
  • Member since:
    03-22-2018

View PostDead_in_30_seconds, on 25 May 2018 - 03:15 PM, said:

We have all read the multitude of rants around 'idiot teams', 'unfair match-making', 'bots', 'noobs ruining games' blah, blah, blah, blah, but my question is this.

 

Isn't the real problem the fact that, what is obviously a team game, simply isn't played by teams?

 

If everyone on the green team communicated with each other, organised tactics such as perimeter defenses, split into groups of LT, MT & HT to attack/defend corridors/choke points, fell back/pushed forward in a co-ordinated manner, and simply put, played as a team, wouldn't our win rate be significantly better?

 

Let's take the hypothesis that the entire red team consists of 'bots', and that WG have deliberately stacked the odds against us. Looking at the performance of 'bots' in the old Proving Ground, are we really not better players than them?

I know. of course, that an initial response is likely to be, "well they don't fill it with 'bots', the MM fills it with players of a higher tier and better WR than us", but can we really blame our 15-4 defeat on that?

 

I think the real blame lay with ourselves. Ultimately we drive off, focused on our own performance. Sure, we are aware of our team, but do we react appropriately? How many times have you received a message of 'defend the base' from someone parked a million miles away, who isn't following their own advice? How many times have you seen a platoon of 3 or 4 players die within the first 5 minutes without a single kill between them?

 

I'm wary of this turning into a boring rant, exactly the type of post I get sick of, but I am really beginning to realise that the reason we get slaughtered so regularly, is the fact that we don't play as one.

Maybe it's time we stopped blaming everyone else, and started examining our own failings.

 

I think in order to get 15, well 30, players picked in random, with different languages,different thinking,different age groups,different aim as to what they want to get out of a computer game, is almost next to impossible. I guess in order for something like that to be achievable would be by imposing several different game mechanics as the game progresses, probably changing the randomness of the game as it exists at the moment(and i think most people would agree, that it is this randomness that makes WoT attractive to many-up to a certain degree at least-). 

So if they were to add game mechanics that alter the way the game progresses(like tank squads within the tank team where each tanker is kind of obliged to follow a certain role and perhaps a certain path in the map, there could be a team commander,second commander etc etc - effectively changing its arcade style using a more realistic approach) it would probably lead to quite a different game i think.( i have not played any other mode , other than random battles and frontline so perhaps i am missing something which exists on team battles/ranked battles etc?)


Edited by _6i6_, 25 May 2018 - 03:33 PM.


Dead_in_30_seconds #7 Posted 25 May 2018 - 03:33 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 1962 battles
  • 459
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    11-07-2017

View Post_6i6_, on 25 May 2018 - 02:16 PM, said:

 

I think in order to get 15, well 30, players picked in random, with different languages,different thinking,different age groups,different aim as to what they want to get out of a computer game, is almost next to impossible. I guess in order for something like that to be achievable would be by imposing several different game mechanics as the game progresses, probably changing the randomness of the game as it exists at the moment(and i think most people would agree, that it is this randomness that makes WoT attractive to many-up to a certain degree at least-). 

So if they were to add game mechanics that alter the way the game progresses(like tank squads within the tank team where each tanker is kind of obliged to follow a certain role and perhaps a certain path in the map, there could be a team commander,second commander etc etc - effectively changing its arcade style to a more realistic approach) it would probably lead to quite a different game i think.

 

Thanks _616_, just the type of thinking this post has been blessed with so far,

 

Game mechanics, and changes required, is a valid route, but wouldn't the answer simply to be a change to a single thought process, namely the way each player approaches the game? Ie ' I will do whatever I can to achieve a win for my team?'

I don't think a change to the game is necessary, simply a change to the way we approach it.

 

Do you think that our preoccupation with personal stats leads to a selfish approach that actually harms our ability to progress?



_6i6_ #8 Posted 25 May 2018 - 03:44 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 3911 battles
  • 81
  • Member since:
    03-22-2018

View PostDead_in_30_seconds, on 25 May 2018 - 04:33 PM, said:

 

Thanks _616_, just the type of thinking this post has been blessed with so far,

 

Game mechanics, and changes required, is a valid route, but wouldn't the answer simply to be a change to a single thought process, namely the way each player approaches the game? Ie ' I will do whatever I can to achieve a win for my team?'

I don't think a change to the game is necessary, simply a change to the way we approach it.

 

Do you think that our preoccupation with personal stats leads to a selfish approach that actually harms our ability to progress?

 

Well one of the points i made in my previous post was " what each person aims to get out of a computer game" which sounds very general, but actually i meant whether a person wants to devote time to actually learn the game and learn how to cooperate with 14 other persons,provided ofcourse they also want to cooperate... so i  guess my mind went straight to altering the game itself as,despite my short time playing the game-just two months-, i have gotten to realise that with such a huge playerbase there will always be a respectable percentage of players not really playing "for the team". Also, since the game has many little "pay-to-win" additions, this alone can lead to a more egoistic way of playing.

I do share your belief about hoping to see people actually playing as a team and "for the team"...but can you really see it happening with the current state of the game?

 


Edited by _6i6_, 25 May 2018 - 03:45 PM.


Dead_in_30_seconds #9 Posted 25 May 2018 - 04:03 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 1962 battles
  • 459
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    11-07-2017

View Post_6i6_, on 25 May 2018 - 02:44 PM, said:

 

Well one of the points i made in my previous post was " what each person aims to get out of a computer game" which sounds very general, but actually i meant whether a person wants to devote time to actually learn the game and learn how to cooperate with 14 other persons,provided ofcourse they also want to cooperate... so i  guess my mind went straight to altering the game itself as,despite my short time playing the game-just two months-, i have gotten to realise that with such a huge playerbase there will always be a respectable percentage of players not really playing "for the team". Also, since the game has many little "pay-to-win" additions, this alone can lead to a more egoistic way of playing.

I do share your belief about hoping to see people actually playing as a team and "for the team"...but can you really see it happening with the current state of the game?

 

 

Nope to the highlighted point.

 



Jigabachi #10 Posted 25 May 2018 - 04:06 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 17846 battles
  • 17,944
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    08-12-2011

View PostDead_in_30_seconds, on 25 May 2018 - 03:13 PM, said:

Out of interest buddy, can you give an example of where the developer, in a similar venture, has set up a better gaming environment?

Basically every game that offers things like balanced gameplay, a progress system, communication with the playerbase or/and very little powercreep.

 

Block Quote

'basic social education' Now there's a whole discussion topic waiting to happen! :)

You don't want to read me ranting about our society...



Dead_in_30_seconds #11 Posted 25 May 2018 - 04:15 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 1962 battles
  • 459
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    11-07-2017

View PostJigabachi, on 25 May 2018 - 03:06 PM, said:

Basically every game that offers things like balanced gameplay, a progress system, communication with the playerbase or/and very little powercreep.

 

You don't want to read me ranting about our society...

 

Kinda think I would :izmena:

Indy_Bones #12 Posted 25 May 2018 - 05:09 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 28830 battles
  • 1,490
  • [WHO] WHO
  • Member since:
    06-06-2011

The language barrier simply cannot be understated here, we're the only server whereby you have a huge amount of different languages spoken natively, and whilst English may well be the most spoken '2nd' language in the EU, it's by now means a given that people can use it - or that they should have to.

 

Obviously this isn't a problem on the other servers - RU speak Russian, NA speaks American (because it's not real English) etc, but when your team consists of 2 Germans, 3 Polish, 1 Spanish, 4 UK, 2 Czech, 1 Hungarian, 1 Serbian and a Russian who's on the EU server for some reason, it's almost impossible to co-ordinate even simple things.

 

Let's also not forget that a large percentage of the playerbase don't care about results and just want to drive round making loud bangs and occasionally hitting something (often by chance)...



NoobySkooby #13 Posted 25 May 2018 - 05:55 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 8288 battles
  • 1,140
  • Member since:
    09-23-2011

View PostDead_in_30_seconds, on 25 May 2018 - 03:33 PM, said:

 

Thanks _616_, just the type of thinking this post has been blessed with so far,

 

Game mechanics, and changes required, is a valid route, but wouldn't the answer simply to be a change to a single thought process, namely the way each player approaches the game? Ie ' I will do whatever I can to achieve a win for my team?'

I don't think a change to the game is necessary, simply a change to the way we approach it.

 

Do you think that our preoccupation with personal stats leads to a selfish approach that actually harms our ability to progress?

 

Definitely so, to some people stats are everything, to the good players I toon with they mean jack crap, in one game the other day I got some abuse, and another fourmite actually stood up for me, (I don't see man forumites in battles so thank you to that guy) which was cool, I got some kills in and was slowly going for another when the last TD got me, but hey ho.

Dead_in_30_seconds #14 Posted 25 May 2018 - 05:55 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 1962 battles
  • 459
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    11-07-2017

Spiel für das Team (German)

 

grać dla zespołu (Polish)

 

jugar para el equipo (Spanish)

Play for team (English)

 

 

hrát pro tým (Czech)

 

játék a csapathoz (Hungarian)

 

играти за екипу (Serbian)

 

играть за команду (Russian)

However it sounds in a player's head, wouldn't 'play for team' garner the same result?

 



NoobySkooby #15 Posted 25 May 2018 - 05:59 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 8288 battles
  • 1,140
  • Member since:
    09-23-2011
I have said it before and will say it again, most of the team works is when you are in a toon with TS communication, but a toon of three is just not able to carry the game for others. have we not all been there where lights and mediums go in the heavy lanes, and heavies go the wrong way, or you are right in the thick of something, fighting your corner valiantly, and then you find the rest of your team has melted,  am sure I am not alone in these scenarios?

Dead_in_30_seconds #16 Posted 25 May 2018 - 06:00 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 1962 battles
  • 459
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    11-07-2017

View PostNoobySkooby, on 25 May 2018 - 04:55 PM, said:

 

Definitely so, to some people stats are everything, to the good players I toon with they mean jack crap, in one game the other day I got some abuse, and another fourmite actually stood up for me, (I don't see man forumites in battles so thank you to that guy) which was cool, I got some kills in and was slowly going for another when the last TD got me, but hey ho.

 

Hey

NoobySkooby

 

Love the name, and pleased to meet you.



mpf1959 #17 Posted 26 May 2018 - 11:41 AM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 11333 battles
  • 428
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    10-29-2017

Personally I don't think it's anyone's "fault". The difficulty of constructing what could, in the real meaning of the word, a team is beyond the scope of any game that didn't allow the following: days or even weeks for the selection of players, ascertaining their skills to match to positions, deciding upon a hierarchy, discussing team strategy and tactics, then practising said tactics and ironing out any erroneous ideas, or team placements, etc etc etc.

 

As was said above, given that we are 30 random players, pulled into a game, and given 30 secs before the thing starts it's amazing there is even the slightest semblance of team play!

 

In spite of all it's shortcomings frustrations and lunacy abounding I still enjoy playing it to the tune of over 30 games a day! I cant really say why, not logically anyway! 


Edited by mpf1959, 26 May 2018 - 11:43 AM.


_6i6_ #18 Posted 26 May 2018 - 12:45 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 3911 battles
  • 81
  • Member since:
    03-22-2018

View Postmpf1959, on 26 May 2018 - 12:41 PM, said:

Personally I don't think it's anyone's "fault". The difficulty of constructing what could, in the real meaning of the word, a team is beyond the scope of any game that didn't allow the following: days or even weeks for the selection of players, ascertaining their skills to match to positions, deciding upon a hierarchy, discussing team strategy and tactics, then practising said tactics and ironing out any erroneous ideas, or team placements, etc etc etc.

 

As was said above, given that we are 30 random players, pulled into a game, and given 30 secs before the thing starts it's amazing there is even the slightest semblance of team play!

 

In spite of all it's shortcomings frustrations and lunacy abounding I still enjoy playing it to the tune of over 30 games a day! I cant really say why, not logically anyway! 

 

agreed :)

Tramp_In_Armour #19 Posted 26 May 2018 - 01:07 PM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 4447 battles
  • 181
  • Member since:
    05-25-2017

View PostDead_in_30_seconds, on 25 May 2018 - 03:33 PM, said:

 

Thanks _616_, just the type of thinking this post has been blessed with so far,

 

Game mechanics, and changes required, is a valid route, but wouldn't the answer simply to be a change to a single thought process, namely the way each player approaches the game? Ie ' I will do whatever I can to achieve a win for my team?'

I don't think a change to the game is necessary, simply a change to the way we approach it.

 

Do you think that our preoccupation with personal stats leads to a selfish approach that actually harms our ability to progress?

 

Attempting to affect a change to the thought processes of thousands of players sounds utopian to me. By what mechanism would, or could, you change it? WOT already uses one subtle mechanism to channel players' thinking: it's called corridor maps. Heavies go this way because the route is protected and leads to a brawling zone, mediums go another way because it's a longer route so it suits their speed and leads to a more open zone, lights go to the open area (token areas even in city maps), TDs go to the conveniently placed bushes here and here, and voila! We have a semblance of order with unified purpose. Except that we don't. Players don't always go where they're 'meant' to go, and everybody complains about corridor maps anyway.

 

I cannot help thinking that you're seeking a Damascene conversion of players, to think of others before themselves. Is this not asking too much? Religions tried hard to modulate people's behaviour, but even with the Inquisition at its disposal, the Catholic Church was unable to stop its members masturbating. Lenin and Stalin tried harder to change their people, but had to lock down an entire society. Even then, they still failed to produce the New Man. And in spite of the bleatings of classical liberals, 'Education' hasn't been that effective in changing human behaviour, so an extensive training and mentoring program in WOT (and it already has a good one for what is a free game) wouldn't do much once players gained the freedom to do what they wanted in a battle.

 

For complete strangers to be able to cooperate on a utopian level would require some form of telepathy. Before anything else can be achieved, a foolproof form of communication would be needed. The only thing I can think of that would overcome the language barrier would be a greater number of shortcut-commands. We have I think five F-keys still unused (though I think some mods have filled them with useless commands), so maybe a wider range of cues would help. They would need to be memorised, though (and I still get the current ones wrong, so I have them on a piece of paper by the computer), and the players would need to have chat enabled (not always the case), and then notice them in the heat of battle (which they don't always do - guilty as charged). And then want to actually pay attention to them. For reasons. I've lost track of the number of times someone has said 'Don't go beach' on Overlord, and then others (including myself) have gone beach. Because they think they know better, and all instructions are taken as merely advice, or just wrong (I go beach when in a TD, to farm the enemy tanks who disregard advice to not go beach - advice they should have taken :teethhappy:). So who's right here, and who gets to be in charge of what team does?

 

Perhaps a suggestion as to how you would affect said changes to the game would be fruitful?



Dead_in_30_seconds #20 Posted 26 May 2018 - 02:52 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 1962 battles
  • 459
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    11-07-2017

View PostTramp_In_Armour, on 26 May 2018 - 12:07 PM, said:

 

Attempting to affect a change to the thought processes of thousands of players sounds utopian to me. By what mechanism would, or could, you change it? WOT already uses one subtle mechanism to channel players' thinking: it's called corridor maps. Heavies go this way because the route is protected and leads to a brawling zone, mediums go another way because it's a longer route so it suits their speed and leads to a more open zone, lights go to the open area (token areas even in city maps), TDs go to the conveniently placed bushes here and here, and voila! We have a semblance of order with unified purpose. Except that we don't. Players don't always go where they're 'meant' to go, and everybody complains about corridor maps anyway.

 

I cannot help thinking that you're seeking a Damascene conversion of players, to think of others before themselves. Is this not asking too much? Religions tried hard to modulate people's behaviour, but even with the Inquisition at its disposal, the Catholic Church was unable to stop its members masturbating. Lenin and Stalin tried harder to change their people, but had to lock down an entire society. Even then, they still failed to produce the New Man. And in spite of the bleatings of classical liberals, 'Education' hasn't been that effective in changing human behaviour, so an extensive training and mentoring program in WOT (and it already has a good one for what is a free game) wouldn't do much once players gained the freedom to do what they wanted in a battle.

 

For complete strangers to be able to cooperate on a utopian level would require some form of telepathy. Before anything else can be achieved, a foolproof form of communication would be needed. The only thing I can think of that would overcome the language barrier would be a greater number of shortcut-commands. We have I think five F-keys still unused (though I think some mods have filled them with useless commands), so maybe a wider range of cues would help. They would need to be memorised, though (and I still get the current ones wrong, so I have them on a piece of paper by the computer), and the players would need to have chat enabled (not always the case), and then notice them in the heat of battle (which they don't always do - guilty as charged). And then want to actually pay attention to them. For reasons. I've lost track of the number of times someone has said 'Don't go beach' on Overlord, and then others (including myself) have gone beach. Because they think they know better, and all instructions are taken as merely advice, or just wrong (I go beach when in a TD, to farm the enemy tanks who disregard advice to not go beach - advice they should have taken :teethhappy:). So who's right here, and who gets to be in charge of what team does?

 

Perhaps a suggestion as to how you would affect said changes to the game would be fruitful?

 

Firstly, +1 for the use of Damascene. Gotta(sic) love the richness of the English language.

 

So, onward to the matter at hand.

 

One aspect of the cited examples of 'mind-set change' failings, ie inquisition, Russian despots etc, should be attributed to the fact that they were 'all stick and no carrot', and this has led me to a change in my thinking. I previously said that a change in mechanics wasn't necessary; This may be erroneous in light of the points you have made.

 

The considered road I am now traveling, is that an increase in reward for 'team' thinking, is perhaps more appropriate.

 

There is a huge focus on 'win-rate'. What if more weight was given to damage caused, assisted damage, vehicles spotted, number of team-mate survived?

What if, you were only credited with a 'win', if your combined damage exceeded 6.66% of total team damage, (one fifteenth)?

Would this increase our focus on 'team play' whilst retaining the naturally altruistic nature of the individual?

 

This approach would not require the impossible task of changing the mind-set of an entire player base, as one could achieve the desired result through the changing of individual reward.

 

There will always exist, of course, a player who doesn't care, no amount of tweaking or wishful thinking will ever remove that recognised human trait, but I am now starting to believe that an increase in reward might very well achieve a more cohesive player base.

 

Serious thought also needs to be given to your identification of unused function keys, although I have yet to come to any conclusion as to what messages would best assigned to them. I have the feeling that this would benefit from a a dedicated thread to garner suggestions.

 

I do believe that my initial suggestion that the lack of team-play contributes to the loss of many games is valid, although I accept that the 'ideal' is Utopian, but I don't accept that the current state of affairs is beyond redemption. 

 

At the risk of getting all 'Brokeback Mountain', thank you for your obviously long considered post. It is this example of intelligent and thought provoking posting that brings me back to these forums on a daily basis.

 







Also tagged with bots, teams, matchmaking, winning, losing, noobs, newbies, win rate, wn8

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users